News-Record.com

"The time taken to report this incident is irrelevant. The public was told in due time — after the wounded party was cared for, after his family was notified and after other, more important needs....." Marilyn

You are mistaken about the time being irrelevant, Marilyn. Three-fourths of a day later Cheney's blood alcohol level was not a factor. Perhaps it should have been.

As I have stated before, I sincerely believe it was an accident that has received too much attention. However, Cheney is as responsible for all this hype as anyone else. Had he reported the accident in a timely manner, I doubt this discussion would be taking place.

But he chose to cloak it in secrecy, even to his "boss", thus making it appear as if something underhanded had happened. We should not crucify the man for bad judgement (the decision to shoot before making sure he has a clear shot). But we should not let him totally off the hook either.

After all, Kennedy is still being crucified for leaving Mary Jo, although already dead, in the water and not reporting it for such a long time. (And folks, please, I am not condoning what he did. I am simply drawing a parallel) Accident, alcohol involvement, delayed reporting, both incidents involving political figures. Very similar indeed.

So, imho, time is the most important factor in this whole equation, not an irrelevent factor.

"Very similar indeed"
The girl left to suffocate in the water by Teddy never had the chance to tell her side of the story. I would love to be able to hear what SHE had to say.

Harry Whittington came out in defense of Cheney and pretty much told the same story Cheney told: a hunting accident that happens many,many times every day.

I agree with the lte writer. The lamestream media in general, and the wh press corps in particular, is in a snit because they were not the first to know and therefore couldn't put their brand of spin on it before releasing it to the public.

So, whose spin was put on this "non-incident" after the news media learned of it?

Shalom

Yvonne,

Mary Jo Kopechne was already dead when Teddy left her? Now, how would you know that? Did Teddy tell you that as he appears to have been the only one there, and he was admittedly driving under the influence. There was no autopsy, and no way to know when and how she died, although it appears that she drowned since she was trapped in a car under water. Quit apologizing for Teddy. He was responsible for killing her. And, as regards reporting the incident to the authorities...he never did. The police went looking for him when they discovered his car in the water.

No, the two incidients are nothing similar. The timing was totally different, and there were witnesses for Cheney.

ORR,

As usual, you have misconstrued my meaning. I certainly feel no need to apologize for Kennedy. My point, once again is, it is hypocritical to ask the public to forgive and forget in North's case but still condemn Kennedy.

Now you can spin it any way you like. It is of little matter to me. I have stated my opinion and you are free to do the same. But please do not put words in my mouth or attribute thoughts to me that I have not expressed. A little common courtsey goes a long way toward enhancing a discussion of the issues.

"Three-fourths of a day later Cheney's blood alcohol level was not a factor. Perhaps it should have been."

Your implication is not substatiated by any facts of the matter. It is over the top and uncalled for.

And you have the audacity on Ed Cone's blog to bemoan the lack of civility in the LTE responses!

Cheney said he had one beer about 4-5 hours before the accident. I would assume there were others there, including Whittington, that could attest to that. One beer will on average produce a blood alcohol level of 0.020 in a person who weighs 165 lbs. The body on average eliminates 0.020 per hour. Soooo, it would have taken about an hour for Cheney to be back at 0.000 BAC. 4-5 hours later there is no way alcohol could have been a factor. By the way, the US Dept. of Transportation regulations will allow an airline pilot to fly an aircraft with a BAC of 0.019.

Yvonne, I think you are trying to stretch it a bit here.

Cheney himself admitted using alcohol that day, prior to the hunt. What amazes me is that the opposite-world thinking that pervades the right is largely wholly without substantiation as they cry foul about FACTS not having substantiation.

Cheney used Alcohol that day. He admitted it. He was not made available to the police for them to do a proper investigation. These are facts. You don't like them, fine. It still does not change them- because they are facts.

Thomas, read the FACTS in my post above yours. Unless you can prove that Cheney downed a 12 pack right before going hunting you are shooting blanks. Pun intended.

Your synopsis of this is weak at worst, and pure conjecture at best.

If Cheney had nothing to hide, then why turn away the Sheriff's deputies? Why not cooperate fully?

Dan, how about deal in facts- he chose to not cooperate in the investigation, so the truth is we will never know if indeed he had only 'one' beer, which, by the way, most drunks tell the cops when they get pulled over for drunk driving.

Just to warn you I am asking my following questions because I am bored on a friday afternoon and just want to stir things up.

We keep talking about how much cheney drinked before hand. He says one beer but what hunter would admit to drinking a six pack after making such a mistake. Now an test would have been definitive to how much he consumed but none was done until to late.
Now did he drink one beer or more. We will never know and why was the test not done. Because he was off concerned about his friend,very possible or was it delayed until to late for correct results. And by the way when police think alcohol was a factor how many hunters are allowed to leave such an accident without first taking this test? And all the cheney supporters keep saying "he says" as in cheney says and his friends tell the same. I find that convinient.
Now are they saying the same because they are telling the truth or are they being loyal friends to cheney and saying what has been agreed upon to avoid any major embarrassment to cheney.
Afterall if you were a good loyal friend,as I assume they are to him, would you go off and talk about how he was drunk and shouldnt have had a gun in his hand or would you say he had one beer four hours ago. I will admit it,knowing the person shot is OK then that one beer four hours ago would be my story.Maybe these men are not telling the truth but protecting a good friend.

"If Cheney had nothing to hide, then why turn away the Sheriff's deputies? Why not cooperate fully?"

LOL!

WHERE have I heard that line of reasoning attacked lately?

Over WHAT issue?

By WHOM?

Thomas & Hayes, if one were involved in an accident and the authorities investigating have reasonable suspicion that alcohol may have contributed then they would administer an alcohol test. Was one ordered? Did he refuse a test?????

They don't automatically order a test unless they have reasonable suspicion. My wife was in a car wreck 3 weeks ago and no tests were ordered as there was not reasonable suspicion.

Thomas, my statement was simply the facts of alcohol ingestion and elimination from the body. Neither you or I were there so neither of us knows. Prove he downed a 12 pack and we will have a different conversation.

So I will throw your words back to you:

Your synopsis of this is weak at worst, and pure conjecture at best.

Hayes,

The same thing happened in Kennedy's case. He left the scene, conferred with his lawyer and friends and they all told the same story. We will never know the truth of the matter in either case. Why? Because of the time lapse.

BTW, all my alcoholic patients admit to "two beers this morning". It is a standard answer even if their blood alcohol level is off the charts. Same with drugs. They will test positive for drugs but swear they have not had any.

There is too much darkness about Cheney's actions to believe he had "one beer" four hours earlier.

Bubba,

You are correct in you comment to me. I did speak harshly to ORR. It was not my intention for it to sound like it did (when I reread it). For that I apologize to ORR.

However, I still appreciate folks NOT twisting what I say, putting words in my mouth or contributing thoughts to me that I have not had.

The difference, Dan, between your arguments and mine are that I highlighted the fact that the sheriff's deputies were turned away by the secret service. Any reasonable person would find that suspect, especially given that the shooter was the Vice President.

Any reasonable person would think that if indeed this was an unfortunate accident, born of pure happenstance, the Veep would be totally forthcoming and be transparent about it. He was not, and his entourage was not. This has been acknowledged all over the political spectrum. That, in and of itself, is newsworthy.

Conjecture? To say that there is something strange about not allowing himself to be questioned? That is not conjecture. And, i don't have to prove anything. The fact that He wasn't forthcoming and transparent proves all.

Yvonne,

Excuse me, but what you ever talking about? What words am I supposed to be putting in your mouth? You clearly said "Mary Jo, although already dead, in the water and not reporting it for such a long time". You typed those words, not I.

My question was how you knew that she was already dead, when there was only one person there to testify to that. And, it was not a matter of the length of time it took Kennedy to report the matter...he did not report it. The police had to find him to get a statement. No, Yvonne, the two cases had no similarity whatsoever.

And, who is North in this discussion?

Finally, I don't understand why you feel that I am misconstruing things again and there is a lack of common courtesy here. I have merely indicated some gaps in your statements. Perhaps, you should acknowledge some oversights on your part, rather than accuse someone else of being discourteous.

Yvonne,

A review of reports at the time show that Mary Jo Kopechne showed no signs of trauma, meaning that she was aware of what was happening. the following statement was attributed to John Farrar, a diver and captain of the rescue team of Edgartown's fire department "It was not the position assumed by a person knocked unconscious by the impact of a crash, Farrar said. "If she had been dead or unconscious, she would have been prone, sinking to the bottom or floating on top. She definitely was holding herself in a position to avail herself of the last remaining air that had to be trapped in the car."

Yvonne, I don't want to belabor this point, but it is very apparent that Kennedy's delay in doing anyting about this accident in all liklihood contributed to Ms. Kopeckne's drowning. In fact, he hever reported it to the authorities at all. Only when the wreck was discovered, and the car was identified as belonging to Kennedy, did the police locate him and get a statement.

I am not reminding everyone of the facts in Kennedy's case in an attempt to absolve Cheyney in any way, but rather to make it clear that the circumstances surrounding his incident which has been over-discussed is mild compared to what happen at Chappaquiddick in 1969. Ted Kennedy may have damaged his presidential aspirations that night, but if his name wasn't Kennedy and he had lives in any other state, he would have never been a Senator for life.

If we can overlook the facts in Kennedy's case, then let's let it go with Cheyney. They are not similar cases...not in the same league, not even in the same world.

Good point Oak Ridge, these speculations and black helicopter theories are getting boring.

As the new bumper sticker goes: "I would rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Teddy Kennedy."

ORR,

Please read my post of 11:55 am. I did speak harshly to you and I apologized.

North was a cross threaded thought. I meant Cheney. Some of you seem to think Cheney is above reproach, that he should not be held accountable for his actions or take responsibility for his involvement in the accident. Yet you still condemn Kennedy for his involvement in an accident of thirty six years ago. And as I said: BOTH WERE ACCIDENTS, BOTH INVOLVED ALCOHOL, BOTH MEN WERE POLITICAL FIGURES, REPORTING OF THE EVENT WAS DELAYED IN BOTH CASES, BOTH MEN'S FRIENDS BACKED THEIR STORY. If these are not similarities, we apparently have a different definition of similar.

You accused me of being a Kennedy apologist. That is what you misconstrued. And I never even thought about defending him (the reason for the disclaimer in my original post). My point was not to apologize for Kennedy but to show how hypocritical it is to hold the two men to different standards. Kennedy was wrong in his follow-up behaviors but so is Cheney.

I was wrong to state my first response as I did. I have apologized. Can we now just discuss the issue without assuming anything about what the other meant? I will ask for clarification. I hope you will also.

From the times of the posts, apparently I was typing as you were, ORR. At least we both are moving in the same direction as far as communication is concerned.

It is apparent we will never agree about what I see as similarities. I will agree, however, Kennedy would have gone to jail if he were not a politician. But Cheney would not have gotten off so lightly if he did not hold the position he does. Had either man been a regular Joe, things would have gone much differently.

There may be some similarities Yvonne, but for what it's worth there is one MAJOR undeniable factual difference that even Thomas Paine cannot spin: With Kennedy someone died, with Cheney someone was injured and is now doing well.

I would rather be Harry Whittington than Mary Jo Kopechne.

Dan,

There is also the matter in Kennedy's case that all indications appear to point to the fact that Mary Joe Kopechne was still alive when Kennedy left the scene. It is probable that she drowned as a result of his negligence, but there is no one other than Kennedy himself to speak to the matter. At least in Cheney's case, the victim received immediate medical attention.

Yvonne, in stating your similarities, how do you know that alcohol was involved in Cheyney's case? I agree that both were accidents and both were political figures, but that is where the similarities end. Reporting of Cheyney's accident was delayed, Kennedy's never happened at all. Cheyney's friends that backed his story were actually there. Kennedy's friends that backed his story were not present, so their backing is not very valuable. Overall, there are some similarities, something like comparing a rottweiler and a poodle. They are both canines, but the similarities end there.

Yvonne, I am not a Cheyney excuser. He did do some things wrong, but he was in an honest situation with friends and many others when he made a mistake. Kennedy was not in an honest situation when he made his mistake, he was alone without any witnesses, and he has been covering it up for more than 30 years without admitting to anything.

To paraphrase a popular phrase these days "When Kennedy lied, someone died".

Thomas Paine,
Your logic is way over the heads of the right leaning regulars. When faced with logic, in this case the truth, they are as Dr. Phil might say, "stoopified"!

Cheney has so far functioned well in a bubble of secrecy. My problem has always been with those who feel they are above the law--Teddy K included. Transparency should be the rule from local politics to the Oval Office. Unless there is a cathartic moment, we will never know the truth with Dick Cheney shooting someone and Ted Kennedy drowning someone.

Had either man been a regular Joe, things would have gone much differently.

You are right Yvonne, Kennedy would be serving time in the slammer and no one would have ever heard of Cheney's accident.

Yvonne, can you be 100% sure alcohol was involved in the Cheney thing? Supposition does not hold water unless backed by facts and regardless there are no facts to back your statement. I don't care one way or the other. I just don't care much for accusations that one can't back with facts.

The fact that He wasn't forthcoming and transparent proves all

Proves nothing except speculation on someone's part. No facts, no evidence, no case. Case closed unless you are the VP who is not liked.

My wife, a former municipal judge in Eastvale, Texas( now the Colony) and not a Cheney fan would throw the case out for lack of evidence.

Facts don't matter to prove guilt for some of these folks MrP, being Republican is enough to be deemed guilty.

Well Dan they can argue with the Judge if they want to, I sure the heck ain't gonna.

Mr. P,

You are right that THE AMOUNT of alcohol in the Cheney case is speculation. But that alcohol was ingested that day by Cheney HAS BEEN ADMITTED by Cheney himself. The reason we do not know HOW MUCH alcohol was actually consumed is because there was a DELAY in the SHOOTING and the REPORTING. AND Cheney WAS NOT FULLY cooperative with law enforcement FROM THE BEGINNING. (The caps indicate FACTS.)

These facts are not indicative of an innocent man. I have provided the following info from Wikipedia to illustrate my point. Just because a man says this and such does not make it the truth. As I have said, it has been my experience for over twenty five years that people are rarely honest when it comes to alcohol consumption and accidents.

"When the car was recovered, all the doors were locked and three of the windows were either open or smashed in. (Which refutes or proves the statement that Kennedy tried to save her. It is speculation as to which.)

Kennedy claims he dove down several times attempting to free her. On television Kennedy later said he was not driving under the influence of alcohol. He explained he was in a state of shock when he emerged from the creek and confused by "a jumble of emotions," and that his conduct in not reporting the accident was "inexcusable". Several details of Mary Jo Kopechne's death remain a mystery."

Kennedy CLAIMS he was not driving under the influence just as Cheney CLAIMS he had "one beer" four hours earlier. We will never KNOW the truth in either case because of a TIME LAPSE. Which brings me full circle to my original post regarding TIME being a most crucial factor.

Perhaps Cheney would have been more successful in convincing the liberals he was truthful in his version of events had he wore a neckbrace during his interview with Brit Hume...

Yvonne, I think you caps button is sticking, better get that CHECKED OUT. Darn mine IS doing IT TOO.

Must be a new kind of virus, Dan. OH, NO. IT's happening again. NoW iT is SpoRatIc. Be bAck LatEr. GoT to cHecK My noRTon.

Thomas:
"He was not made available to the police for them to do a proper investigation. These are facts. You don't like them, fine. It still does not change them- because they are facts."

Thomas, I have to ask, where is your link to back up your “facts”? I have a link that says your facts are not correct. See the smoking gun and the report from the Sheriff, where it states this:
“Along with San Miguel's report, investigators also released a two-page supplemental report prepared by Salinas, who learned of a "possible hunting accident" from Captain Charles Kirk around 5:30 PM Saturday. About ten minutes later, Salinas was called by a Secret Service agent who reported that the accident at the Armstrong Ranch "involved Vice-President Cheney." Salinas then contacted Ramiro Medellin, a former Kenedy County sheriff who works at the 50,000-acre ranch. Medellin, Salinas reported, told him, "This in fact is an accident," adding that he had spoken with "some of the people in the hunting party who were eyewitnesses and that they all said it was definitely a hunting accident." After speaking with Medellin, Salinas apparently believed that there was no need for further investigation that night. He then contacted San Miguel and directed his deputy to arrive at the Armstrong Ranch the following morning at 8 AM to interview Cheney and other witnesses.” http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0216061cheney4.html

"If Cheney had nothing to hide, then why turn away the Sheriff's deputies? Why not cooperate fully?"

Who turned away who? Sheriff’s deputies were not turned away, it was a border patrol officer and the person at the gate was unware of the accident at the time. First question if they were attempting to “hide” the fact an accident occurred, why contact the Sheriff’s office in the first place?

"Dan, how about deal in facts- he chose to not cooperate in the investigation, so the truth is we will never know if indeed he had only 'one' beer, which, by the way, most drunks tell the cops when they get pulled over for drunk driving."

Again where are your facts, the sheriff himself stated he talked to all parties and believed it was an accident so decided not to send anyone over till that morning. Secondly according to wikipedia: “The United States Secret Service is a United States federal government law enforcement agency” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service. Now let’s suppose you are right, the VP is drunk as goes hunting do you actually think the Secret Service, who’s job is to protect the VP is going not only put their own lives in danger but the VP’s also? What about the whole hunting party, are they also lacking in intelligence that they themselves are going to go hunting with someone who is drunk? It’s called common sense and I see some on this board actually lack that component.

"The difference, Dan, between your arguments and mine are that I highlighted the fact that the sheriff's deputies were turned away by the secret service. Any reasonable person would find that suspect, especially given that the shooter was the Vice President.”

The difference is I highlighted facts, backed it up with links where as you just posted something and claimed it to be facts, along with spreading misinformation (deputies were not turned away by the secret service unless you are referring to this: "Saturday evening: Cheney and the rest of the hunting party sit down for dinner at the ranch. At some point, sheriff's deputies who heard reports of the ambulance responding to an accident at the ranch stop at the front gate to see if anyone needs help, but are told no one needs assistance." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-16-cheney-timeline_x.htm. Which if you read the whole timeline would see that the Sheriff (who by the way is a democrat) already decided to interview the VP in the morning. So again where do you get that deputies where turned away because Cheney was drunk and the Secret Service and the whole ranch were covering for him?

Yvonne:
"The reason we do not know HOW MUCH alcohol was actually consumed is because there was a DELAY in the SHOOTING and the REPORTING. AND Cheney WAS NOT FULLY cooperative with law enforcement FROM THE BEGINNING. (The caps indicate FACTS.)"

A DELAY in the REPORTING was to the PRESS, not to LAW ENFORCEMENT. Cheney WAS FULLY COOPERATIVE with law enforcement FROM THE BEGINNING. (the caps indicated are FACTS provided with links to back it up, see prior post to Thomas). So unless you have links to back your facts, it seems that your facts are just your OPINIONS.

Now I agree with mrp, to me this is a non-issue and I really don’t care. However I only responded because I do not like it when people claim what they write are facts and then fail to back it up with a link. More to the point I do not think it is right that people claim facts when they are nothing but their own opinions. This spreads nothing but misinformation.

The whole Cheney non scandal was just another talking point until they could move on to the next non scandal.

Those who continue to insist on obsessing over something out of nothing regarding the Bush Administration need to realize the Big Boys and Girls on the national scene have LONG moved through at least two more non scandals to further their agenda in the antique media's headlines..

Trish,

What you provided is links to argue aganist strawmen you have created. No one on this thread has stated that the shooting was not an accident. So why are you in such a tizzy to argue it was an accident? A strawman.

Your links, your proof, gave evidence it was the border patrol, at the gate, that denied Captain Kirk assess to the ranch. Not that it was the border patrol that was turned away. In your haste to find fault with others, you misread. Another strawman you created.

Why did the secret service find it necessary to call the sheriff of the county at HOME to let him know it was the VP involved in the shooting? The authorities had already been notified. Otherwise, Captain Kirk would not have gone to the ranch to investigate. Why not leave it to the law officer on duty? Because there was something to hide. "It's called common sense and I see some on this board actually lacking in that component."

By your own links, you have proven that not ALL parties involved were interviewed. Yet you plainly state all were interviewed and everyone said it was an accident. Now who is offering an opinion as opposed to stating facts?

I am not here to argue with you or anyone else. But I do not like someone charging in with a cannon blasting away at others, convinced that only she has all the answers. And then her own links not supporting what she states.

Bubba,

I guess you don't consider yourself one of the "Big boys" since you are continuing to make comments on things the "Big boys and girls" have moved away from. Just an observation.

"Bubba,

I guess you don't consider yourself one of the "Big boys" since you are continuing to make comments on things the "Big boys and girls" have moved away from. Just an observation."

You're right, Yvonne. That stuff was so last week. I should have simply ignored you and your comment.

In fairness though, it's really hard to ignore a comment made by someone who previously said that Mary Jo Kopechne was dead when Teddy left her underwater.

That statement was a pivotal moment in your career as a LTE responder, and it caused me to pay more attention to what you had to say.

“What you provided is links to argue aganist strawmen you have created.”

Did you read the links? One was the OFFICIAL REPORT FROM THE SHERIFF. And you say I am creating “strawmen”, the official Yvonne reply when she has been shown to claim facts when they are her opinion. Point in case from you post: “The reason we do not know HOW MUCH alcohol was actually consumed is because there was a DELAY in the SHOOTING and the REPORTING. AND Cheney WAS NOT FULLY cooperative with law enforcement FROM THE BEGINNING. (The caps indicate FACTS.)” Lets look at what you claimed to be facts: Delay in the shooting (new one on me was the shooting suppose to happen earlier? I didn’t even address this because thought maybe it was a typo). You go on to say there was a delay in the REPORTING. Which you now state: “The authorities had already been notified.” Which is it Yvonne? You state in one post it is a FACT that there was a delay in the reporting now you are stating otherwise, so either the authorities had been notified before the call to the sheriff or they delayed the reporting. Can you please explain this contradiction to me?

Next you state: “No one on this thread has stated that the shooting was not an accident. So why are you in such a tizzy to argue it was an accident? A strawman.” First off I am not in a tizzy about an accident, quite frankly I could care less one way or the other. However you and Thomas happen to be stating things as fact when they are not (which I proved by the OFFICIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT REPORT). A strawmen, well let’s look at what you and Thomas claimed as facts Yvonne states: “Had he reported the accident in a timely manner, I doubt this discussion would be taking place.” Yvonne now says “The authorities had already been notified.” So which is it? 2)Again you state Yvonne and claim it is a fact that “REPORTING OF THE EVENT WAS DELAYED IN BOTH CASES”. Again my link to the official report proves that wasn’t the case and you even now claim they had been notified. Again this is called spreading misinformation to claim something that hasn’t been proven to be true is false. This Yvonne is what I was talking about. Now to Thomas’s facts: 1) “Dan, how about deal in facts- he chose to not cooperate in the investigation” 2) “He was not made available to the police for them to do a proper investigation. These are facts.” (Again read the official report from the SHERIFF he was made available and the Sheriff made the call to interview the VP the next day). 3)” that I highlighted the fact that the sheriff's deputies were turned away by the secret service.” (Yes Thomas highlighted that but failed to mention the deputies came hours after the shooting and offered assistant none was required because Mr. Whittington had already been taken to the hospital). Can you now see that you and Thomas stated something as a fact when the official report states otherwise. Which would mean one of two things, the Sheriff and everyone involved is lying while you and Thomas were witness and your version is the truth or the Sheriff all parties involved are stating the truth and well you and Thomas are expressing your OPINIONS and not facts. Because your facts are different from the report, you tell me which facts are correct and which are opinions, yours and Thomas’s or the Sheriff and all parties involved?

“Why not leave it to the law officer on duty?”

Well according to the Sheriff this is why: ““The Sheriff of Kenedy County received a telephone call at my home from Captain Charles Kirk … Captain Kirk stated he was on his way to the Armstrong Ranch to get more information”

“8-10 minutes later I received another call from the United States Secret Service Agency …”

“After I hung up, Captain Kirk called me back and said he’d made contact with a Border Patrol agent at the Armstrong gate and the Agent told him he didn’t know anything about the accident. I then told Captain Kirk that it was fine and that I would contact someone at the ranch.”

He then goes on to say that he talked with a former Sheriff that was at the ranch blah blah blah, then he states: “it was at this time I decided to send my Chief Deputy first thing Sunday morning …”

I do not have time to retype the whole report for you, but the Sheriff felt like this was an accident, and the VP didn’t need to be interviewed till the next day.(So if your and Thomas theory about a alcohol being a factor and there being a massive coverup to do so you have to state that the Sheriff is in on it as well as everyone else, again no facts to back this up) Now who do you feel is more qualified to make that decision, you and Thomas or the elected Sheriff of that county? Secondly I asked you never bothered to answer but again if Cheney was drunk do you really think the Secret Service would allow the VP to go hunting and do you really feel like a whole hunting party would go along?

“Now who is offering an opinion as opposed to stating facts?”

Please Yvonne post exactly where I stated an opinion other then the fact that I don't care one way or the other? I used the official report are you saying the report is just an opinion and you who wasn’t there (or were you) know the facts and the Sheriff doesn’t?

“ I do not like someone charging in with a cannon blasting away at others, convinced that only she has all the answers. And then her own links not supporting what she states.”

Blasting away? Is that all you have Yvonne, normally I get your full lecture about what a horrible person I am when I prove that you state facts not in evidence. Doesn't support what I state, well let's get to the meat of it, I am stated that you and Thomas were claiming facts that are not facts. You two claimed facts not in evidence and my link supports that. And just to make sure you don’t get confused, I stated my opinion, I don’t care one way or the other I responded because you and Thomas were either 1) lying or 2) spreading misinformation or 3) stating opinions as facts. I gave you both the benefit of the doubt and thought you weren’t lying you just were spreading misinformation. I responded by proving what that misinformation was and provided the correct information. Now you have a couple of options, step up to the plate admit you stated opinions not facts and move on, prove my facts (the official report) is lying and you are correct or take your ball and go home which is what you normally do. I have done what I set out to do PROVE that you and Thomas were not providing the FACTS that are on record, so in case someone reads this they do not take your and Thomas’s misinformation and spread it and in the end make themselves look like someone who is uninformed.

You can call that strawmen I really don’t care. I proved my point. Now if you or Thomas has other information with links included to back up your facts then please provide them, it was all I was asking for. If not spare me the lecture and strawmen routine.

Oh and yeah this would be guns blashing becuase quite frankly I can't stand someone who can't step up to the plate and admit when they misspoke but instead tries to blame the person who proved their facts wrong.

One last point. To those who think there is some big conspicary, let's look at how big that scope is. First other the the VP lying and covering up so is every member in the hunting party, as well as the doctor who follows Cheney as well as the hunting guide. So they all like Cheney or were bought off. Next you have all the workers at the Ranch, since this lady is well off and the VP is staying there I doubt she cooks the meals or serves them. So maybe only say what the butler served the food. Ok what about the Secret Service, to say there is a conspicary is to say they are incompatent in doing their job by allowing the VP to get drunk and go hunting, so they are putting their own lives in dangerous not to mention the hunting party and the VP. Next we have the Sheriff and former Sheriff, they too are all in on it and let us not forget about the vicitim who claimed alcohol was not involved. Do you see how silly you guys sound? How in the world does someone keep a conspicary on this scope covered up? I'll be honest you people sound like those loons who claim it was the government who blew up the World Trade Center and not planes, yet my question to those people are, what happen to all the people on the planes and where are they?

Trish,
The Secret Service protected John Kennedy's affairs, and the Secret Service protected Clinton's infidelity---What makes you think they would not protect "DICK"?
Lose the emotional attachment and let the media do their job. You've always got FOXNews for your entertainment pleasure.

"The Secret Service protected John Kennedy's affairs, and the Secret Service protected Clinton's infidelity---What makes you think they would not protect "DICK"?"

So DD are you saying that JFK's and Clinton's affairs put their lives in danger? I thought at one time you said Clinton's "was only sex", so how then would that put Clinton's or the Secret Service agents lives in danger?

Oh and by the way their job is to protect Cheney so if he was drunk are you saying that the agents were incompotent for not doing their job? Please explain it this big conspiraricy and how it works. The whole hunting party, the whole ranch staff, the Secret Service, plus the Sheriff, a former Sheriff oh and the victim are all covering for Cheney oh and again what is the big "thing" they are suppose to be covering up?

Trish,

It is a good thing you are young. Otherwise you would have popped a vessel or had an MI by now. You really should take an anger management class.

If you are calm enough to actually debate this issue, I'm game. However, you don't get to tell me what to say or how think in a debate. So please stick to the issues.

I said you were using strawmen because you did. According to Wikipedia the definition of the term is as follows: "Straw man" may also refer to the straw man fallacy, a rhetorical technique (also classified as a logical fallacy) based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

Your first misrepresentation was that Thomas and I were denying the shooting of Whittington was an accident. As I have already posted, more than once, no one in this thread has said otherwise. Yet you present this and argue that we have implied that it was not.

You supplied links that you said proved Cheney was fully cooperative. Nowhere in you link did it state Cheney was fully cooperative from the beginning. It did not even prove he was available until much later. In fact, the next morning, 8AM I believe you said. Second misrepresentation.

Then you said it was a border guard that was turned away at the gate, not the sheriff. Your evidence proved this to be untrue. It was in fact the border guard that detained the sheriff at the gate because he did not know anything about a shooting. To borrow your phrase, now which is it?
Third misrepresentation.

You go on to say "...the sheriff himself stated he talked to all parties...". Again, your own evidence shows he, in fact, did not talk to all parties. Another misrepresentation, as it is evident he did not talk to Cheney until the next morning. Had the SS not contacted the sheriff at home to tell him the VP was the shooter, you can safely bet law enforcement officers would have been all over anyone else.

You are right about one thing. I cannot prove Cheney had more alcohol than he admitted to. But you cannot prove he didn't. Your speculation that you presented as "common sense" when in fact it was opinion, is no more than just that, opinion.

The people interviewed, the ranch owner, the guide and another hunter, were interviewed that evening but Cheney was not until the next morning. It was then that Cheney denied alcohol was involved in the accident. Come on, what would you expect him to say?

Quite often people go hunting, fishing, riding, bar-hopping, sailing, to poker games, to all kinds of events, with people who are legally drunk. So your "common sense" theory is not cutting it as fact.

The accident occurred at approximately 5:30PM according to all reports. The incident was not reported to the press until the next day. On several websites, it stated Cheney's own private ambulance took Wittington and Cheney to a small local hospital. Then Wittington was flown to Corpus Christi, approx. 40 miles away.

My statement was, and still is, that there was a delay in the time Cheney shot Whittington and the time it was reported. My error was in not being very clear about who it was not reported to. I did assume, since the letter writer specified the "press/media", everyone would know who I meant. Apparently it was a wrong assumption.

You have gone off on many tangents, Trish. Most are hostile, angry and antagonistic. You really should learn to present your case in a more adult way. I do not expect you to acknowledge this is good advise. In fact I expect it to be met with more hostility. This has been your MO. So if you cannot engage in a civil conversation, I will simply ignore your posts.

This is what I did for the longest time. Then I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of a doubt.

Trish,
You are such an "apologist", you need to work for the Bush/Cheney team. They need all the help they can stand, so you can join Hugh, Dan and neoCON and rescue their boat adrift. Take some advice from Yvonne about debating.
What you just don't get:
The Secret Service is NOT going to tell us whether Cheney was casually drinking, or blasted (pardon the pun) out of his gourd. That is my point...but you have to go off like the half wit you appear to be.

"Your first misrepresentation was that Thomas and I were denying the shooting of Whittington was an accident."

Sorry Yvonne that seems to be your misrepresentation. I was actually interpreting you and Thomas to be well bluntly lying with the facts I gave you guys both the benefit of the doubt here thinking maybe you read it somewhere and was just repeating it, but the way you kept on about me saying that ya’ll said it wasn’t an accident. Hello! I am really confused here, where did exactly did I say that. I said you guys were stating facts that were not facts. Can I make it any simpler?

“You supplied links that you said proved Cheney was fully cooperative. Nowhere in you link did it state Cheney was fully cooperative from the beginning. It did not even prove he was available until much later. In fact, the next morning, 8AM I believe you said. Second misrepresentation.”

Before I go any further here did you actually READ the official report? Because if you did you will see where the SS asked if the Sheriff was sending someone over. But for the fun of it let’s suppose you and Thomas are right (which you still haven’t proved Cheney wasn’t cooperative correct or did I miss the link you guys posted?) but we will go with that theory, Cheney drunk so he doesn’t want to be interviewed, well explain to me exactly how and why the sheriff was notified? If they wanted to cover it up and everyone was going to lie, why did they report it at all. Why even bring Cheney into it. Please help me understand this conspiracy and why these people were first stupid enough to go hunting with a drunk and then secondly too stupid not to call the sheriff and third even if they had to call why bring Cheney in, why not say he was back at the ranch and oh I don’t know the guide shot the lawyer. Be honest, do you see how silly you guys sound.

“Then you said it was a border guard that was turned away at the gate, not the sheriff. Your evidence proved this to be untrue. It was in fact the border guard that detained the sheriff at the gate because he did not know anything about a shooting. To borrow your phrase, now which is it?”

LOL this is way too funny, I swear I feel like I am in a Abbott and Costello movie, who’s on first. This right here proves you either do not know how to read (which since you are reading this shows that is not right) or you didn’t read the link. How in the heck did the border guard detain the sheriff when he was at home? See how it is easy to mistype? However unlike you I can step up to the plate, Yvonne is correct, I mistyped my post to Thomas, the deputy spoke to a Border Agent at the gate, not that the Border Agent was turned away. However I did post a link where that was listed, but I will do you one better, upon further looking into this story I ran across the USA today timeline (to which I posted the link) where is said officers can to assist and they were turned away, I included this in my next post to Thomas in case he was referring to that. But yep I did mistype my original post about the Border Agent.

“You go on to say "...the sheriff himself stated he talked to all parties...". Again, your own evidence shows he, in fact, did not talk to all parties. Another misrepresentation, as it is evident he did not talk to Cheney until the next morning. Had the SS not contacted the sheriff at home to tell him the VP was the shooter, you can safely bet law enforcement officers would have been all over anyone else.”

Well Yvonne here again you are wrong because the Sheriff who um wrote the report stated: “After hearing the same information from eyewitnesses and Constable Medellin, it was at this time that I decided to send my Chief Deputy first thing Sunday morning to interview the Vice-President and other witnesses”

But I will do you one even better, because following this statement the Sheriff’s report goes on to say “A few minutes later, I received another call from the Secret Service asking if I was going to send someone to the Ranch. I told him that someone would be there first thing in the morning. The Secret Service said they would be at the gated waiting.”

So for the third time explain why if Cheney, the Secret Service, the shot lawyer, and the hunting party were covering up for Cheney why the heck did the SS ask if they were going to send someone over to the Ranch?

“The people interviewed, the ranch owner, the guide and another hunter, were interviewed that evening but Cheney was not until the next morning. It was then that Cheney denied alcohol was involved in the accident. Come on, what would you expect him to say?”
I would expect him to say that alcohol wasn’t involved, however what I wouldn’t expect is over 30 people to lie for one guy and no one blow it. Nor would I expect people with a little bit of intelligence (oh and with evil secretive personalities as some say Cheney is)to not call the Sheriff in the first place and even if they did I wouldn't expect them to say Cheney is involved, I mean if everyone is going to lie why not just say it was someone else and no story. Secondly as to the people interviewed, according to the Sheriff he interviewed several witness the same day he did Cheney. As also mentioned a former Sheriff was there on the ranch when this happened, is he covering up to?

"Quite often people go hunting, fishing, riding, bar-hopping, sailing, to poker games, to all kinds of events, with people who are legally drunk. So your "common sense" theory is not cutting it as fact."
Do all these people have the Secret Service whose job it is to protect them with them? Do you really believe the Secret Service is that lax in their job and would even put their own lives in danger?

“My statement was, and still is, that there was a delay in the time Cheney shot Whittington and the time it was reported.”
So now you are saying that if the press had been informed that they would be able to tell if Cheney was drunk or not? Do they carry breath analyzers with them? Let me be clear so you don’t think I am using “strawmen” you stated in your very first sentence: “You are mistaken about the time being irrelevant, Marilyn. Three-fourths of a day later Cheney's blood alcohol level was not a factor. Perhaps it should have been.” So since you were talking about the press being informed with this sentence am I now to understand that if the press had been informed then they would know Cheney’s blood alcohol level? You then go on to say “Had he reported the accident in a timely manner, I doubt this discussion would be taking place.” So I have to ask if Cheney had issued a press release to say the AP, then all your doubts about blood alcohol levels would be mute? But wait you also state: “but he chose to cloak it in secrecy, even to his "boss", thus making it appear as if something underhanded had happened.” First off are you stating Bush is his boss and he didn’t tell him, however reports states otherwise Bush was told Sat. night but more to the point, if the Sheriff had been informed what secrecy is there? Hold on though because you go on further to state: “After all, Kennedy is still being crucified for leaving Mary Jo, although already dead, in the water and not reporting it for such a long time. (And folks, please, I am not condoning what he did. I am simply drawing a parallel) Accident, alcohol involvement, delayed reporting, both incidents involving political figures. Very similar indeed.” So you compare this to Kennedy who didn’t call law enforcement not to mention the press. Now I just want to make sure I understand what you are actually saying. Am I getting this right, these comments were not about contacting the Sheriff but not contacting the media, is that right? Why then do you compare this to Kennedy when Kennedy actually never reported the accident to the police? Just to be clear this is stated about Mary Jo: “Kennedy managed to escape from the submerged car, but he left the scene and did not report the incident or Kopechne's whereabouts to the police.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Jo_Kopechne So if in fact you originally compared the two your cases doesn’t hold because Kennedy never reported it and you say Cheney didn’t report it to the Press so it is the same?

“Apparently it was a wrong assumption.”
Yeah it was sorry about that but you originally compared this to Kennedy and his failure to report it to law enforcement and then you go on to say that because he failed to report this to the press then that shows he could have been drunk, yet if he had reported it to the press then we would have known he wasn’t. Sorry I didn’t put that together because honestly it is just too bizarre.How does issuing a press release determine how much Cheney had to drink?

“You have gone off on many tangents, Trish. Most are hostile, angry and antagonistic. You really should learn to present your case in a more adult way.”
Just couldn’t help yourself with the lecture huh? Well that’s ok I still proved your facts weren’t facts at all and to top it off I showed that I am a bigger person then you are because I admit when I am wrong, but to each his own. Although I know you probably have taken you ball and went home but I’ll put it out there here are the questions you missed in my post:
1)Did you read the links? 2) Lets look at what you claimed to be facts: Delay in the shooting (new one on me was the shooting suppose to happen earlier? 3) Now who do you feel is more qualified to make that decision, you and Thomas or the elected Sheriff of that county? 4) Please Yvonne post exactly where I stated an opinion other then the fact that I don't care one way or the other? 5) Now if you or Thomas has other information with links included to back up your facts then please provide them, it was all I was asking for.

“Then I made the mistake of giving you the benefit of a doubt.”
No the mistake you made was actually thinking that I would be like everyone else and allow you to claim stuff that is untrue almost to the point of out and out right lies. Thing is I have great debates and excellent exchanging of ideas from others who have different views and I get along great with them, Eric and Hayes are two excellent examples. But you see they actually tell the truth, state their opinions and aren’t afraid to answer questions in return. You on the other hand wish to be able to say whatever you want and how dare anyone question you, and they better not dare prove your facts wrong because then you are in a tizzy with guns blazing. You come across as high and mighty. Some used that term about you when I first started posting here and yet more then a year later it still sticks. As I once stated before I lost all respect for you when you encouraged another to harass me that ruined the nice old lady imagine for me. Just remember next time when it is your opinion to state it as such and not as a fact because if I know you are wrong I will call you out on it and it doesn’t bother me if you don’t answer but at least anyone who reads it will know that your facts aren’t really facts.

"Take some advice from Yvonne about debating."

Yeah DD I really should take Yvonne's cue to debating, however I actually like to debate and I really don't have a problem answering any question put to me whereas Yvonne style does.

I will say that as you can see I rarely lower my standards and reply to your post that and well to be quite frankly I really am afriad that the tin hat you wear is going to start smoking and well as we all know secondhand smoke might just kill me. I by pass everything you post because quite frankly I have to ask myself if you took your meds before posting, but like Yvonne I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt well you just showed me that your meds must need a refill.

However just to show that every once in a while when boredom sets in people will do crazy things, the reason I am responding to you at all.

"he Secret Service is NOT going to tell us whether Cheney was casually drinking, or blasted (pardon the pun) out of his gourd. That is my point...but you have to go off like the half wit you appear to be."

Woo hoo DD, the point is not about TELLING but about doing their job. If they were doing their job they would not have let him go. So please tell everyone here, let's here you say it you think the SS agents are incompontent and did not do their job. Oh and DD if they were not going to tell us, please explain again why they called the Sheriff to ask if they were sending someone over, kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it. Yes DD I am the halfwit but tell me honestly do you think the government blew up the trade towers and it wasn't planes, are you that person who runs that website? Keep up the good work DD without you and your post I wouldn't have your funny wacky post to laugh with others about. If you just knew what a kick we get out of them you would probably have to charge us an entertainment fee.

I certainly hope you never reach a point of having power .... in any organization! You are one scary person.

As to SS, I never implied they were incompetent, just that they will protect the VP from any threat real or perceived. If Cheney had too many, I would expect them to hold him from any press, breathalyzer tests, etc. You are way out of line and quite worked up. Shut down your computer before you go postal on someone!

Yvonne said: "You really should learn to present your case in a more adult way". And: "I will simply ignore your posts".

In other words: "If you insist on presenting the facts, then I will simply take my ball and go home"!! LOL LOL

Ever notice when someone on the left is presented facts that fly in the face of their conspiracy theories, they invoke the old "you need to act like an adult" or "grow up" broken record line? lol

Game Over:

Trish....10
Yvonne.. 0
DD.......-3

Trish,
With friends like neoCON in your corner, you've reached the depths of infamy and degradation. Hope all is well when they drive you back to Butner.

Does anyone but me notice how many times the word DELAY in reporting is used? Freudian slip???

I really don't understand how anyone could go to such great lengths to defend Dick Cheney of all wrong doing or care about it anymore. He accidentally shot a man; some folks question the DELAY; he has not been charged with anything, nor should he be, imo. Since the guy is OK, you have to admit some of the jokes are pretty funny.

I don't blame Cheney for shooting the guy; I don't blame Bush for dodging the draft, I would have too; Their crimes all revolve around the war on Iraq, imo.

Carol,
As one comedian said after Cheney shot Whittington in the chest and face, "It's probably best he refused to go to Viet Nam--you know, he had 'other priorities' at the time".